Here's my problem with the counter to the Roe argument--we should NOT start talking about our rights as limited to what the Constitution specifically states.
The 'reasoning' of Roe is correct, it's whether or not one agrees that the unborn are deserving of protection and whether or not states have the power to regulate surgical procedures or an individual's control over their body.
I think conservatives are waaaay too eager to jump onto that very narrow view of the Constitution. "there's no right to XYZ in there!" is a tyranny-supporting view, in my opinion.
Quite true, but IMO irrelevant.
The first problem is that there was no groundswell of opinion from the people nor the states to make abortion a right. If there was, a constitutional amendment was the way to go. Secondly, and it has been a number of years since I read Roe v. Wade, the written decision is horribly contorted and impossible to follow.
Make no mistake, Roe v. Wade was judge made law unsupported by the people.
I could not disagree more. The reasoning of Roe gives one person a "right" to decide the fate of another life, outside of due process. Further, Roe's reasoning removes from the public square any debate on the morality/immorality and rightness/wrongness of permitting the practice.
The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the government's intrusions on citizens rights. By enumerating specific areas in the BOR, and reserving all others to the states and/or people, the framers specifically mandated public debate and legislative decision making on issues not amongst the enumerations. Judicial legislation such as Roe turns the entire "checks and balances" philosophy on its head.
Basically, I see your stated position as saying that (by not specifically mentioning abortion) the BOR says we can't discuss it as a society. Why would we have legislatures and executive branches then, pray tell?